Sorry, Attila, this is not how Apache works. In Apache, everyone is equal and anyone only becomes a committer when they prove their value to a project.
Gj On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 8:16 PM, Attila Kelemen <attila.keleme...@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand your concern but I wanted to point out that you have nothing > to base a vote on. Unless of course, if we would require a CV of some sort. > Later, there would be no point to quickly bring in new people. I would see > why vote then (but then we would need info on the people being voted in). > > 2017-09-12 19:54 GMT+02:00 Matthias Bläsing <mblaes...@doppel-helix.eu>: > > > Hi, > > > > Am Dienstag, den 12.09.2017, 19:28 +0200 schrieb Attila Kelemen: > > > If someone gest hired, I don't see the point of voting. I think a > > > simple introduction would be enough, there is nothing to base your > > > vote on (unless in the very unlikely case if you know something > > > sinister about them). Since committers' actions are very visible, I > > > don't think the risk is high. > > > > in all fairness, if Oracle trusts an employee, that does not mean, that > > I trust him/her by proxy. > > > > There still needs to be a discussion which development model is being > > followed. It is suggested, that each commit needs 3 +1 to be merged. > > While I still doubt that, this will work, it will make trust easier, as > > nothing get directly into the repository. If the commit-than-review > > model is followed, a graduation period seems sensible, in which also > > new employees of oracle won't commit directly, but need to be sponsered > > by existing committers. > > > > This is not directed for the current situation, but a reply to the "an > > employee is trusted by default". > > > > Mfg > > > > Matthias > > >
